tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX December 21, 2014 6:00am-7:01am PST
i'm chris wallace. a gunman kills two new york city policemen he says to avenge the death of eric garner and michael brown. and u.s. officials are calling the cyber attack on hollywood one of the greatest national security dangers we face. >> we cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the united states. >> how will the u.s. respond to the hacking attack on sony pictures? and how vulnerable is the u.s. to cyber warfare from north korea and other countries? we'll ask the chair of the house
intelligence committee, mike rogers, who says we need much stronger fire walls against this growing threat. then, the u.s. and cuba end a cold war that lasted half a century. >> suddenly, cuba is open to the world in ways that it has not been before. >> this president has to be the worst negotiator we've ever had, and he has betrayed, betrayed those cubans that have work sod hard and have sacrificed so much. >> two members of the senate foreign relations committee will debate the president's opening to cuba. republican ron johnson and democrat ben cardin. plus, jeb bush moves one giant step closer to running for president. how does his early announcement shift the landscape for 2016? our sunday group weighs in. all right now on "fox news sunday" and hello again from fox news in washington. first some breaking news. a gunman has shot and killed two
new york city police officers execution-style after vowing on social media to retaliate for the deaths of michael brown and eric garner. our fox news correspondent has the latest from new york. brian? >> reporter: chris, chillingly, the killer posting images on instagram of his semiautomatic weapon and bloodstained pants with anti-police messages, suggesting the shootings were revenge for the deaths of michael brown and eric garner at the hands of police. quiting, "i'm putting wings on pigs today. they take one of ours. let's take two of ours." #shootthepolice, #ericgarner, # ripmikebrown. this may be my final post. police say this man, 28-year-old ismaaiyl brinsley, walked up to an nypd patrol car in brooklyn saturday and opened fire through the passenger side window, shooting officers 32-year-old
wenjian liu and rafael ramos. he later killed himself in a sub straightaway station. earlier that morning brinsley shot and seriously wounded his former girlfriend in baltimore before traveling to brooklyn, a wanted flyer sent to the nypd too late. police commissioner bill bratton says the officers were, quote, targeted for their uniform. >> today, two of new york's finest were shot and killed with no warning, no provocation. they were quite simply assassinated. >> the shooting fueled tensions between nypd and new york mayor bill de blasio. new york city's police union says de blasio essentially threw city police under the bus by failing to back the officer not indicted by a grand jury in the choking death of eric garner. last night police officers turned their backs on the mayor moments after he visited the families of the fallen officers. >> we tried to warn. it must not go on.
it cannot be tolerated. that's blood on the hands, on the steps of city hall, in the office of the mayor. >> reporter: the president briefed while on vacation in hawaii, issued a statement urging calm while unconditionally condemning the murders. >> brian, thanks for that. in other breaking news, president obama has now directly blamed north korea for the cyber attack on sony pictures. and he promised a proportional response. but what does that mean and how vulnerable are we to cyber warfare? we'll talk with congressman mike rogers, chair of the house intelligence committee, in a moment. but first fox news chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge brings us up to date. >> reporter: the sony attack is believed to be the first time destructive malware has targeted a firm inside the united states. hackers physically destroyed
data and systems. similarities between the hack last year on south korea's banks that left many customers unable to withdraw money from atms with the sony attack led the fbi to conclude north korea was a principal in both. a bureau statement reads north korea's actions were intended to inflict significant harm on a u.s. business and suppress the right of american citizens to express themselves. the president went further, saying sony was willing to pull the movie, "the interview," starring franco and seth rogen, because it silenced free speech. >> i am sympathetic to the concerns that they faced. having said all that, yes, i think they made a mistake. or even worse, imagine if producers and distributors and others start engaging in self-censorship. >> reporter: sony's president responded that they had not caved or given in to north korea's demands, explaining the
entertainment company had few options after theaters started dropping out. a petition by george clooney failed to gather signatures with the actor telling deadline hollywood not a single person in his industry would sign up. an entertainment source told fox that sony even took the film to major online streaming companies and they all refused to run the mov movie. chris? >> cathryn, thank you. now, let's bring in the chair of the house intelligence committee, michigan congressman mike rogers. chairman, welcome back. >> thanks for having me, chris. >> the fbi used very tough language to describe this hack attack. let's put it up on screen. north korea's attack on sony pictures entertainment reaffirms that cyber threats pose one of the greatest national security dangers to the united states. two questions. how serious was the attack? do you regard this in a sense as an act of war? >> well, you can't necessarily say an act of war. we don't have good, clear policy
guidance on what that means when it comes to cyber attacks, but let's back up this a minute. russia attack eed estonia. iran attacked saudi arabia, clearly a destruction on a company there, destroyed 30,000 computers, wimed and destroyed data. we kept warning, those of us that have been paying attention to this, this is coming to the united states, probably sooner than later. what you saw was a nation-state who engaged in trying to really destroy an american company and then took it to the broader level of using threats of violence in order to get their political will. this was a nation-state attack on the united states, and saying aloha and getting on an airplane going to hawaii is not the answer really the world needs, let alone america. >> all right. well, the president has promised there will be consequences. here's what he had to say about that. >> they caused a lot of damage
and we will respond. we will respond proportionally, and we'll respond in a place and time and manner that we choose. >> so, how tough should he get with north korea? >> unfortunately, he's laid out a little bit of a playbook before we've done anything. that press action should have been here's the actions we took on north korea's actions, and here's what we're going to continue to do. right now -- and trust me, our intelligence services, the folks who would be responsible for at least the first wave of trying to make sure they don't have the capability to do this again, were ready. they have the capability. they were ready to go. the problem here was not the fact that we didn't have a capability to do something nearly in immediate time. we just didn't get a decision from the president of the united states. >> are you saying that we should launch a cyber attack to take out their cyber warfare capabilities? >> i'm saying if you're talking about a proportional attack, it should be at least proportional. the united states has the capability to make it very
difficult for the north koreans to do an attack like this anytime soon. >> take out their cyber infrastructure. >> well, i'll let you define what that looks like. they have the capability to do it. here's the problem. so there is lots of discussions last week about what this looks like. do you not acknowledge, do you acknowledge, take an initial step and then acknowledge? by acknowledging it and then laying out to say we'll do something in the future, you have diminished the capabilities we can engage in this particular -- >> you mean they can protect themselves? >> for a whole host of reasons i can't go into in detail, but you just limited your ability to do something. just calling north korea out isn't going to be enough. so i would argue you're going to have to ramp up sanctions. it needs to be very serious and significant. remember, a nation-state was threatening violence. so forget the fact that, you know, the hollywood drama of this particular event. they went into a company and they youed something called a wiper virus. they wiped out data. so if you're at home and thinking how does this affect me, this is hollywood, you know,
who cares, the problem is what if it's your car company that you work for? what if it's a bank that you work for? or what if it's a bank that you have transactions with and that data is gone, it's destroyed? meaning i don't know how much money i have in my bank and the bank can't tell me how much money i have in the bank. that's how serious this is. >> what you're saying is they took cyber action against us. we need to take cyber action in retaliation against them. >> again, i'm not going to say exactly specifically, but i can tell you we have the capability to make this very difficult for them in the future, at least in the near term. but i don't think that's enough. this was a nation-state who attacked an american company and then threatened violence in that second order against people who would go to the movies. take the movie part out of it. this was the fact that they were willing to commit acts of violence or threaten acts of violence against u.s. citizens in the united states. that's a huge and significant problem. this is the country that tested nuclear weapons as late as last year. >> okay. you talk about, you know, the
effect this could have an all of us. the federal government is now banned from helping private companies build up stronger fire walls to prevent cyber attack. in fact, you sponsored a bill that passed the house last year that would have made it easier for the government to cooperate and deal with private companies to protect themselves against this kind of threat. it passed the house. it did not pass the senate because privacy advocates were worried about more abuses from big brother, if you will, on the internet. question -- did those privacy advocates in this new world post sony, do they need to get over those concerns? >> i they healthy concern is a good thing. we accommodated those concerns in the bill. that's why we got a bipartisan vote in the house of representatives on a bill that does simply this -- it allows the nsa and other agency who is go overseas and collect malicious source code, that nasty stuff that hurt sony, that could hurt your bank, your job,
bring it back, they protect the government networks but were prohibited from sharing that with the private sector. 85% of all the networks out there, chris, are private sector networks, and contrary to popular belief, the nsa is not monitoring those 85% of the networks. they're private networks, which is why north korea can attack a company like sony. this would allow them to share malicious source code to protect themselves. we built in all the protections for civil liberties. again, this isn't about reading your e-mail. it's about stopping malicious source codes, zeros and ones in a configuration that do nasty things to your computer and your information and are highly disruptive. >> there was a different kind of terror attack this week in australia, an iranian held 17 people hostage in a sydney cafe for 16 hours before police finally stormed the place. it reminded people of the lone gunman who attacked the canadian parliament as well as the man in new york who attacked police there with a hostage. how big a threat are lone wo
wolves, and to you distinguish between the committed jihadist, somebody like nidal hassan at ft. hood, and some of these cases which seem to be deranged, sick individuals who kind of latch on to islamic teachings as a kind of cause or a script? >> hard to argue you're not a deranged individual if you're willing to be inspired to chop someone's head off. i don't care if you're stable one day and not stable the particular day. same with the other lone wolves. here's the problem. earlier in australia, which fundamentally changed the way we saw groups like isis, isil, or dash operate, they had people identified in australia who were going to come to fight in syria. they made a really significant change. they called back and said, no, don't come, got plenty of people coming. stay in australia, randomly kidnap people, chop their heads off, film it, and we'll use it for propaganda purposes. that is a fundamental change. so if they're doing it in that
case, you know they're pushing out this notion to inspire others to commit these acts. canada. we've seen arrests in germany, france, spain, the united states, great britain. it's getting worse, not better. >> finally, let's discuss your committee's report, the house intelligence committee report on benghazi, which as you know has gotten a lot of criticism, including from some commentators here on fox news. the committee found, and let's put this on the screen, that no evidence that there was -- that either a stand-down -- that there was either a stand-down order or a denial of available air support to prevent rescuing u.s. personnel. here are two security contractors who are at the cia annex and say they were prevented from going to the consulate to rescue u.s. personnel there. here they are speaking both before and after your report.
>> i said today, we've got to get over there, we're losing the initiative. bob looked at me and said stand down, you need to wait. >> we feel our words have not been recognized or used as validation for what took place that night. i don't know how you cannot use our words. there were eyewitnesses there. >> they say there was a stand-down order, chairman. why don't you believe them? >> well, they were certainly clearly told to to wait. again, they acted very bravely that particular evening. but on sworn testimony, including people who have gone on tv, it's very clear that they went through the line of questioning of no stand-down order. they were told to wait, which was a tactical decision on behalf of the leader to get more information about when they should go and if they can get more arms to go. and i argue that's very, very different. i think this clear, bright line people have drawn, as well, there was either a standdown order or not, in this particular case. now, remember, we interviewed contractors who are now public.
we've also interviewed security contractors who are still working overseas who provided sworn testimony and witness testimony. and as a former fbi agent working bank robberies and bombings and other things, sometimes in a very high-adrenaline combat environment impact, people's version of events are a little different. the goal here was no piece of information could go forward if it wasn't substantiated or corroborated. all of that was done in the report. by the way, the report was very narrow. this was not designed to be a huge end of the conclusion. there are serious questions yet to be answered. >> let me ask you about that because you've also been criticized for going easy on the administration talking points in which, among other things, susan rice came on this and four other sunday talk shows saying this was a spontaneous protest that went violent, it wasn't a planned terror attack. your report says the process used to generate the talking points was flawed and mistakes were made in the process of how those "talking points" were
developed. critics say that you're ignoring the fact or glossing over the fact that this was in effect political damage control in the midst of president obama's re-election campaign. >> well, that part we wouldn't be able to get at because it was beyond the scope of the report. that's what's unfortunate about this. most of the people out publicly beating up the report have never read the report or accessed the classified annex, which is an important part of why these conclusions were come to, and the classified evidence, including some members even on the committee. >> quick question. do you think this is political damage control by the obama administration? >> well, what i believe and what the report -- i want to make very clear, two separate things. >> i'm asking what you believe. >> i do believe that the administration used this -- the way they tried to present the facts for their own political purposes. and i believe that in the state department we have very little answers on what happened in the state department. remember, my committee was only
to do the laying of intelligence on the ground. so our report only did the intelligent lane, didn't do the state department, didn't do d.o.d., didn't -- >> but used for political advantage, political damage control? >> it's hard for me not to come to that conclusion. again, my report, the committee report, was only for the intelligence. i do believe that people in the state department had not yet been held accountable, and i believe in expeditionary diplomacy, believe in putting these folks in tough circumstances. >> people haven't been held accountable including secretary of state clinton? >> well, again, the investigation needs to determine that. that's where i think the select committee can get at. the state department, which we had no questions answered, and the white house itself and the national security council, we've had no question of -- >> you feel there are unresolved issues. >> i do, yes. >> chairman, thank you for coming in today. merry christmas, and good luck with your new career where you join up and you're going to become a radio talk show host. good luck. >> thank you so much. merry christmas to you and your
think they made a mistake. >> president obama with surprisingly strong criticism of sony pictures for pulling its controversial film "the interview" under pressure from north korea. time for our sunday group. syndicated columnist george will, judy woodruff, co-anchor of the "pbs news hour," fox news contributor liz cheney and fox news political analyst juan williams. george, did sony make a mistake? what should they have done when the big theater chains said they wouldn't run the movie? and how serious a threat is this to freedom of expression in the country? >> the president is right. you can't have a free society if a dictator can impose censorship on us. that's true but not exactly pertinent. north korea did not and does not have the power, unless the country is full of sleeper cells and north korea is ready to act against every cineplex in the country. this was self-censorship, and it happens in america all the time, and i wish the president would
come to the party and talk about it. there are two great things, american liberalism unchallenged in america, hollywood and college campuses. college campuses constantly restrict speech in the name of a new entitlement, not to have your intellectual serenity disturbed, your emotional equilibrium upset, or your feelings hurt. happens all the time. when this occurred, sony had no vocabula vocabulary, no philosophic basis for pushing back. you have to sympathize with them because they're operating in an era and a place where we need new protocols. it's not formally negotiated some understanding. was this or was this not an act of war? the president understandably is reluctant to say this, understandably for a number of reasons, one of which is called stuxnet. that is the united states probably was involved in using a computer virus to physically manage iran's nuclear weapons program. good but dangerous.
>> we asked you for questions for the panel, and we got several, in fact, a number of people who are outraged by sony's decision to pull the picture. let's put a couple of them up on the screen. lisa winters-rogers says on facebook, if we give in to them, north korea, about a movie, what's next? and this on twitter from roscoe arbuckle -- i don't know if i can ask a question. i have to ask north korea first. judy, how do you answer roscoe and lisa? >> well, sony has now backed down. they've said in essence the reporting in the last day or so is that they are going to find a way to get this film out there. it may be wide streaming or video streaming, video on demand, netflix, something like that. sony -- as george said, you have to appreciate the dilemma they were in. 80% of theaters were saying we're not going to run this movie. but now they are going to get it out, and i think the question you have to move on to is what is the american response going to be?
this is a serious attack, and the u.s. has to respond. it's not just a hack. they were using blackmail. so the administration really has no choice than to do something. >> well, let's talk about that because president obama does promise a response, and some are suggesting that he put north korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. others are suggesting we once again freeze all transactions with a bank in macau, which has acted apparently as a money launderer to provide oodles of cash for the kim regime. liz, it turns out that both of those were sanctions that were in place but that were taken off during the bush/cheney administration. were you guys too soft on north korea? >> well, i think that the north korea policy in the latter half of the bush administration didn't work. and it was primarily state department pushing this notion of secretary rice to sign the document, removing them from the terrorist list over the objections of the office of the
vice president and others. but, so, yes, i think north korea's clearly been a challenge for administrations for many years now. you've seen this pattern of lying, deceiving, cheating. they did it to the clinton administration when they sign the agreed framework in 1984, did to the bush administration when we were anxious to get an agreement on their plutonium nuclear program. this is an opportunity now for this president, you know -- somebody said this week -- to prove he knows how to confront dictators and not just coddle them. i wish i were more hope that feel's what he was going to, do but i think putting them back on the terrorists lists, working with europeans to get swift to stop approving financial transactions, designating them a money laundering concern, all of these steps could be taken that would both send the signal we take very seriously this attack on sony and also frankly would help us with respect to our standing in the world and our credibility with respect to other dictatorships and rogue states. juan, how tough should we get with north korea? >> how tough should we get with china, chris?
because i think china is their patron in this situation. you have here a moment where you have to realize north korea doesn't have the capability to really do a serious attack on sony. i think what they had to do was have some help from inside of china. china helped north korea to exist. north korea could not exist without china there as a helping hand. the question is act the u.s. then relationship with china and how much pressure are we willing to put on the chinese? edward snowden, when he was first busted for his attack on the american systems, it looked like he was gaining information on what we were able to do against china. and don't forget that we have, in fact, indicted five members of the people's liberation army, whatever they're called, the chinese, for launching hack attacks on american entities. so i think -- don't want to start a war over this. let's not go crazy. i think president obama is right when he said this is cyber vandalism, not an act of war. but you have to understand the broader consequences. and i think therefore i would stand with liz cheney. let's go after some of the
markets and banking transacti transactions. maybe that's a proportionate response. >> thank you, panel. we'll see you a little later. so what do you think? how should sony pictures have handled north korea's threat? let me know on facebook or twitter @foxnewssunday. up next, a historic shift as president obama moves to restore diplomatic ties with cuba. did we give up too much for too little from the castro regime? two members of the foreign relations committee debate. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva is a once-daily inhaled... ...copd maintenance treatment... ...that helps open my airways for a full 24 hours. you know, spiriva helps me breathe easier. spiriva handihaler tiotropium bromide inhalation powder does not replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate.
these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells,... you can get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. sfx: blowing sound. does breathing with copd... ...weigh you down? don't wait ask your doctor about spiriva handihaler.
after a half-century of cold war sanctions, president obama has opened a new chapter in relations between the u.s. and cuba. joining us now to debate this dramatic shift in policy, two members of the senate foreign relations committee, which will have to review some of the changes. from wisconsin, republican senator ron johnson and from florida, maryland senator ben cardin. gentlemen, let's start with the big picture. president obama says that a half a century of sanctions, of isolation of cuba just hasn't worked. here he is. >> i don't anticipate overnight changes, but what i know deep in my bones is that if you've done the same thing for 50 years and nothing's changed, you should try something different if you want a different outcome. >> senator johnson, i guess
that's the question. why not engage cuba? why not expose it to western values and western capitalism, especially as the country is about to go through a generational change from the castro brothers? >> good morning, chris. well, your panel was talking about north korea. we relaxed sanctions on north korea. we've relaxed sanctions on iran. has that worked? the fact of the matter is these are reimpressive presrepressive. this policy hasn't worked but not necessarily because it's bad policy. helms/burton was pass nld an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion and signed by president clinton. on a bipartisan fashion this has been the policy of the united states for 50 years and helms/burton is 18 years. i would argue it's not because of bad policies, because we're dealing with bad and evil people, a repressive regime that has backed terrorists around the world and is going to threaten the national security of america and not improve lives of cuban
people. >> senator cardin, that's the other side of the argument you hear, that president obama has given up too much to the cubans in return for too little. another senator from your foreign relations committee, senator marco rubio. >> these changes will lead to legitimacy for a government that shamelessly, continuously abuses human rights, but it will not lead to assistance for those whose rights are being abused. snoond just to add to that, cuban president raul castro pledged in a speech before his parliament yesterday, senator cardin, that his government will not abandon communism. >> chris, i can assure you that we will continue to point out the fault of the cuban system, and we will speak out against human rights. but one thing is clear. the more americans, business people that interact with cubans, the more americans that have a chance to interact with cubans, the more the cubans will
realize that their current system is failing them and will want to the benefit of a more open society. that i think is clear. but we will stay strong in our message on violations of human rights. we've done that in the past. alan gross is now home with his family. that's an important step of progress that's been made. commitments given by the cubans. we'll see how they'll carry them out. we have moved on to a new chapter. we're looking forward rather than back, and i think that's going to be good for cuban people and good for the united states. >> gentlemen, let's take a number i suspect you can argue both kways, and that's number o political prisoners in cuba which has risen from 2,000 in 2010 to 8,400, four times as many, last month. senator cardin, i guess the question is, why reward a dictatorship that, as you can see in the last few years, has become more repressive, not less so? >> i think the question would be why continue a policy that hasn't brought about change? let's try a different policy.
so the number of political prisoners is outrageous. it's hurting cuba. we know that. if they don't open up their society, their people are the one who is suffer. i think the more exposure we can give them to americans, the better it's going to be. but we're going to continue to speak out in regards to the fault of their system. >> well, senator johnson, answer, if you will, senator cardin's question, which is it hasn't worked, why not try something different? >> well, again, it hasn't worked, relaxing sanctions in iran or north korea, but let's listen to the words of some of these political prisoners froms can castro. it is discomforting that the accounts of castro's regime can grow as the first step will be more effective repression and rise of political corruption. another said this is a betrailer that leaves the democratic opposition defenseless. obama has allied himself with oppressors and murders of our people. these are people who have been imprisoned by this evil regime. i don't see relaxing sanctions working in iran and north korea.
why would you expect that type of relaxation sanctions are going to work with the evil castro regime? >> well, let's pick up on, that because that's the point, senator cardin, you continue to make, which is there's going to be exposure to western values, western people, western business, and that that is somehow going to at least begin to open up cuba. here are some of the things that president obama is going to be able to do unilaterally. ease u.s. exports of building materials and agricultural and telecommunications equipment, establish banking relations between the two countries. senator johnson, let me get you to directly confront what senator cardin said. do you think that kind of relaxation, that kind of opening of business and trade between the two countries, even though we're not lifting the trade embargo, will that benefit the average cuba? >> no. the cubans get those kind of goods from other trading partner, and the castro regime has remained every bit as
oppressive and repressive, so that is not going to help the cuban people at all. it's going to funnel funds into the castro regime they can use for creating may hhem in the western hemisphere. it won't work. >> senator cardin, senator johnson makes a good point. other countries have trade and diplomatic relations and it hasn't softened or eased the communist regime of the castro brothers. >> very interesting conversation with alan gross who -- >> he was an american who came down there to try to provide more internet access and ended up as a political prisoner or accosted, whatever you want to call it, for, what, five years. >> five years he was in the cuban prison. he said the country is so underutilized. they don't eve haven't enough vegetables to feed their people and they have plenty of land and great weather. i think people are going to recognize the fact their country is underperforming and they tear ones who have been victimized by the castro regime. that's going to come. we saw that with the fall of the
communism in europe as the iron curtain fell. people want the type of standard of living that see in their neighbors where they have open, democratic societies. cuba's close to the united states, in our hemisphere. it's our neighbor. it's a country we have a direct interest -- it's in our interest for cuba to change, and this policy gives us hope that we'll see a different cuba. >> all right, gentlemen. a couple minutes left and i want to get to i guess in the end the big question as far as the two of you are concerned, which is what can congress do about it. senator johnson, as an opponent, what can you do to block the opening of diplomatic relations, and what can you do to block the easing of trade limits? >> first of all, this is another example of president obama trying to circumvent the very clear spirit in the law of helms/burton. again, that was a bipartisan effort. chairman menendez is saying the exact same thing. so, really, there's some real prosubscriptions in that helms/burton act that you
really -- the administration has to follow some very specific steps before they lift the embargo. the president has not followed them. in other words, the determination that there's actually been a transition government, that hasn't happened. so there are a number of things we can do to try to actually enforce the law that this president simply is ignoring. >> senator cardin, look at it from your point of view. how effective can opponents be in blocking, for instance, the establishment of full diplomatic relations? you're certainly going to have a problem with the president decides to name an ambassador, getting him confirmed in a republican-controlled senate. and what about if they pass legislation to restrict any of the trade openings that he's making here unilaterally? >> well, you know, ron's right. there's different views among democrats and timpbtd vidiffere among republicans on this subject. i think you'll see a change developing in cuba. the american people are going to get it. our political system will want to be engaged. i think you'll see action in
congress. a lot can happen without direct congressional activity, but there will be a need for congress to take action hopefully as we move to a new chapter in our cuban relations. it will be an interesting debate in congress and it won't be one party versus the other. it will be what we can assess in this country and i hope democrats and republicans can come together and work on a new chapter in our relation with cuba. >> senator cardin, senator johnson, thank you both for coming in today. merry christmas and happy hanukkah to both of you gentlemen. >> merry christmas to you, chris. up next, jeb bush shax up the race for the white house by announcing early.
can move the needle. >> jeb bush sounding very much like a presidential candidate and then announcing on facebook he will actively explore a white house run in 2016. we're back now with the panel. liz, what do you make of jeb bush deciding so early, not necessarily that he's going to run but kind of running? and do you see his support for legal status for people who are in this country illegally and his support for common core educational standards, are those too moderate for the republican base who will be voting in the gop primary? >> i think it's fascinating that he made this announcement as early as he did. he's clearly going to be a serious, formidable candidate if he ends up getting in the race fully. his record as governor of florida is certainly a conservative one and he certainly is still very popular in florida. so i think that, you know, the conventional wisdom that you sort of see now forming that he's not a conservative, you know, we'll see. and he's going to have to fight
t for this and prove himself like any other nominee. >> but those positions on immigration and education aren't disqualifying? >> no, i don't believe they're disqualifying. people have to remember, though, that conservative principles, conservatives are the heart and soul of our party. and we got beat in 2008. we got beat in 2012 in part because we didn't get our voters energized, enthused in the polls. and so whoever is our nominee, whoever is successful in the primary is going to have to be somebody who can lead and inspire and energize the conservative base of our party. and, you know, we'll see what happens. but i think, you know, jeb is going to have to fight for this, just like every other candidate will. i think it's interesting to plant the flag this early and sort of people the excitement of the primary season beginning. >> we're excited for the sunday talk show, judy. planting the flag so early is obviously the two year, literally, is jeb bush now the front-runner for the nomination? >> oh, i don't think you can say anybody's the front-runner. you can say maybe hillary clinton is the front-runner on
the democratic side pip think it's much more wide open than that on the republican side. by the way, on the two issues you were just asking liz about, it's so interesting because if those are the two issues that are defining whether he is conservative enough, those both have their roots in his brother's presidency. certainly immigration reform and then the common core, the debate over educational standards, had its roots in no child left behind and what came out of that and the educational standards argument that came out of that. but who knows whether he's the front runler. we will see. but it's clear that he is speeding the process up. i can guarantee you a number of republicans are not spending this holiday just toasting marshmallows with the family around the christmas fireplace. they're sitting and thinking are we going to go or not and it's sped up the timetable. chris christie, you know, has to be thinking about it. >> there's money there's organizers, a whole infrastructure before you actually announce. and jeb bush is obviously going to soak a lot of that up. george, two things. one, i'd love your thoughts on
bush. but i also want to ask you about what has been a surprisingly nasty flak this week between senators rand paul and marco rubio over the question of president obama's opening to cuba after paul said, rand paul said he supported as rubio said, like this m people, he, paul, has no idea what he's talking about. then rand paul fired back, seems to me senator rubio is acting like an isolationist who wants to retreat to our borders and perhaps build a mote. george? >> cuba is a scene of two failures, one of communism. since 1991, the disappearance of kay queue ban's patron, the soviet union, has not made any sense at all, as far as i'm concerned. marco rubio is right that the president should have struck a better bargain to help the breathtakingly heroic democratic movement in cuba.
on the other hand, he's wrong to say that this concern is legitimate. governments drive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, and that does not exist kuwaiti in cuba. rand paul is right that some kind of exposure of cuba to the culture of america, both our popular culture and the culture of commerce, is apt to be a solvent to the regime. however, rand paul does not seem to be, as many of us are now, sadder but wiser about the liberalizing effects of trade because we've tried this with china weather vietnam, and both have shown the compatibility of an open economy and a closed political system. >> before i bring in juan, your thoughts quickly about jeb bush. >> four strikes against him -- common core, immigration, his name and the big sign on his back that says establishment choice. all that said, he's enormously talented, does his homework. the republicans have not won the presidency without a bush on the
ticket since 1972. they're ready to start again. but i think he's a huge plus to the race. if he won, chris, he'd be the third bush to be president within 25 years. >> fox news -- different subject. fox news has obtained a letter that chris christie has sent to president clinton. very interesting, calling on the president to demand that cuba return convicted cop killer joanne chessmarde who's been given safe haif en in cuba since the 1980s. christie writhes to the president, "i urge you to demand the immediate return of chessmarde before any more consideration of restoration of diplomatic relations with the cuban government." juan, this is just an indication. there's a lot of unfinished business and a lot of scar tissue between the u.s. and cuba. >> no question about it. and in that letter chris christie refers to her as notorious and a cold-blooded killer. so interesting because if you
listen to her and, you know, it's even political in terms of how i speak of her, is she joanne or her other name, she is the aunt or godmother of tupac shakur, the musician. she describes herself as a folk hero and she has become a folk hero and revolutionary figure in black america. she talks act herself as a saved slave. but the reality is she's a convicted murderer. >> who incidentally got out of prison when she was sprung by some of her confederates. >> correct. people who were members of the black liberation army brought guns into the prison. we have a situation where if you believe in law -- you can take sides with the police, say it's a racial issue, a ballpark/white issue, especially after what's happened with michael brown and eric garner, but -- and of course that horrible killing in new york yesterday. but the fact is if you believe in us, the american people, black, white, asian, hispanic as a country of laws, you have to
say this is a convicted murderer and should be brought back to this country. cuba has 70 u.s. prisoners there that they have designated as political prisoners, and i think fidel castro gave her protection, sanctuary, really to gives us a thumb in the eye. so it appeals to all the attitudes in terms of black america's, you know, love of the revolution and fighting against the white man and all that. but you know what, this is all about fidel castro. and he is a despot in my opinion and someone who the united states needs to be very clear, until there are human rights established, political freedoms, freedom of the press established, we should not be flaying footsie and shouldn't be sending christmas cards to fidel castro. >> i stand with juan williams. >> i was going to say. what is in the water here? i don't know fit's a christmas miracle or whatever, but you two are a the hard-liners today. >> i was born in panama, and my dad had some opinions about these latin-american december
holiday season. it's a moving example of love for our country and personal generosity. once again, here's our "power player of the week." >> we wouldn't have the opportunities if it wasn't for the people that fought for us and gave their lives for us. >> it's that pain-spoken wisdom that has driven moral worcester for years on a mission that has touched america's heart. each december, he places wreaths at arlington national cemetery, and thousands of volunteers are there to help him. >> i think a lot of people think like i do. they just want to -- you know, they appreciate the veterans and they want to show it. >> this story begins back in 1962, when wooster, then a 12-year-old paper boy from maine, won a trip to washington. what impressed him most was arlington, its beauty and dignity, and those rows and rows of graves. >> every one represents a life
and a family and a story. they're not just tombstones. those are all people. >> 30 years later, in 1992, wooster was running his own wreath company in harrington, maine. but as christmas approached he had a bunch left over. >> these wreaths are real fresh, just made, and i just didn't want to throw them away. >> he thought of arlington and all those graves. when the cemetery approved, he and a dozen volunteers drove the wreaths down and laid them on the headstones. and so it continued for years until a few christmases back, when an air force sergeant took this picture, which ended up on the internet. >> it kind of struck a nerve and people emailed it to each other, and it really went around the world. >> going right there. >> there you go, sir. >> we were there the next year as he and his workers at the o wooster wreath company loaded up
5,265 wreaths. then they embarked on what wooster called the world's longest veterans parade, a 750-mile journey that at some point attracted more than 100 vehicles. and when they got to arlington, so many people wanted to participate. >> the ceremony you are about to witness is an army reclaimed ceremony to be conducted for the wooster wreath company. >> for years wooster paid for all of this out of his own pocket and he started wreaths across america, sending hundreds to cemeteries and war memorials around the country. but he will need help to reach his new goal. >> i think around 2.7 million graves, and that's a tall order to decorate 2.7 million graves. so -- >> you'd like to do it, wouldn't you. >> i really would. sometime. i don't know how. but, hey, you know. >> how long are you going to keep doing this? >> i'm going to keep doing it for as long as i work and then i know my family's going to continue. so it will be here for a long
time. >> this is the 23rd year wooster has taken on his christmas wreath project. at arlington and other veteran cemeteries in all 50 states and overseas. this year more than 700,000 wreaths mark the graves of veterans thanks to over 50,000 volunteers. and now another christmas tradition. all five of the wallace grandkids are here this year. here is livvy, her first christmas, sabine, james, caroline, and william. from your family to yours, have a very merry christmas and we'll see you -- >> next "fox news sunday." >> all right. kids, three, two, one -- >> merry christmas! >> you did that very well. that was good. well done.
diblasio. two of new york's finest was killed with no warning, no provocation. they were quite simfully assassinated. this morning, president obama unconditionally condemns their murder. we are closely following the story. we will have more on the investigation and the reaction. new contract for sfo restaurant workers. this is for them walking off the job again.